On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> wrote:
> BTW, the issue with the underlying question is that their "name" column is
> unique. They expected to get a serialization failure on duplicate insert
> into "name", not a unique constraint violation. The question wasn't "why
> doesn't this fail" but "Why does this fail with a different error than I
> expected". Not that the question made that particularly clear.
Sounds to me like it's giving a better error anyway - more helpful to
know _why_ the second transaction failed than to simply know _that_ it
failed.
I've actually never used serializable transaction isolation,
preferring more explicit constraints.
ChrisA